Quote: Funny. My teacher told me on day one of karate, 'We are a traditional dojo...no sparring.' Or essentially, no sparring until a certain level of control is reached. I'd like to point out that 'traditional' as a term doesn't mean no-sparring, or no-sparring until several years, or no-resistance in some dojos.

Yes, I agree that tradional doesn't mean 'no sparring'. Actually I said that some 'tradional' dojo now spar. However, this appears to be a fairly modern innovation in Okinawan Karate. Many of the most tradional dojo still, staying tradional, still do not spar. Now we can perhaps debate about what the word 'tradional' means, and in this case your sensei was probably using it in to better differeniate what he/she does from modern sport Karate. However, I'm using 'tradional' in the strictest sense, and no, 'tradional' Okinawan karate did not spar, due to numerous reason, not the least of which was not having access to modern medicine, as well as not having safety gear. This is coming from several articles I've read over the years in Journal of Asian Martial Arts. Sadly, I don't have them anymore (accidently tossed them during a move), so I can't reference them. I think one was by Mario McKenna. Anyway, this historical information is easy to come by: tradional Karate did not spar much. Certainly not enough for it to be considered a part of the methodology of passing down the art.

--Chris

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Quote:Boxers before the early 1900's fought bare-knuckle and had a completely different style. Then people started using gloves and then larger and larger gloves and more and more rules (or different rules) and strangely boxing changed as the rules changed.

1) Boxing changed a lot when US servicemen went into the Philippines. At that time they still fought in the manner of John L. Sullivan (arms outstretched, etc). The Filipinos with whom they sparred had a different style of striking. They fought with their hands close to the face/torso because, having your arms outstretched over there would have them carved up by knives (the Filipino martial arts being, heavily "blade oriented"). Their empty hands approach was an extension of their weapons approach and thus they kept their hands close even when fighting empty handed. The had greater mobility and footwork than their Western counterparts who basically stood motionless like statues. Clueless statues. These Filipinos are said to have greatly influenced American boxing subsequently.

Primitive you ask? You betcha.

Quote:

Bareknuckle boxers fought much more like traditional Karate fighters than "modern" boxers. IS that because they were "less scientific" and more premitive in their use of boxing?

That they may have fought similarly, doesn't mean that they were doing the same thing or even had the same goals. Primitive, you ask? No more primitive perhaps than someone in the NBA reverting to using a two handed set-shot as their primary shooting mechnanic.

Quote:

It seems odd that all of the sudden in a period of maybe 40 or 50 years the techniques of boxing would increase drastically and all those years before the techniques had stagnated and no one progressed in knowledge or skill and would just less skilled.

You're just assuming that boxing stagnated. Who is really to say what happened in other part of the world (the Philippines for example) where boxing looked more like it does today? Boxing there had a great effect on the nature of boxing as I mentioned. That's one big reason why the styles began to evolve. Living arts evolve, dead arts don't.

Quote:

Jkogas would you say fighters of recent times are more skilled than fighters of the bareknuckle days or early days of gloved boxing? I find that hard to believe.

Unequivocally. Let me answer it this way; are today's football players better than those of a hundred years ago? What about today's basketball players vs. those of a hundred years ago? Why woudn't boxers be any different? The old bare knuckle guys didn't even use footwork. It's not even comparable. We know more today. We have greater science. We simply understand more about scientific training. It's no contest.

Quote:

Fighters of the old days usually fought a lot more and boxing had been around for a couple hundred years.

Yes, and now it's been around even longer. We know more today as a result. There is no question that the skill is better. Don't get caught up in the romance of the "olden days". They weren't necessarily that much better. We can however see that vast improvements have been made. Like, keeping your hands in close and protecting your head for example.

Quote:I would think they would've gotten pretty skilled after all that time. Maybe thir style went along with the rules just like today rather than simply being worse.

What are you basing that on, having BEEN there or something? Come on man.

Quote:Also, the use of boxing in mma is very different from boxing under boxing organizations. If it's all basically the same wouldnt they use textbook boxing in mma rather than modifying it so much?

Its actually not that much different. The stance is a bit wider, but otherwise, the better strikers in MMA have boxing experience. They AREN'T walking in there with their arms stuck straight out in front of them, that's for sure. It's really not modified as much as you're making it out to be. They have to square up more to defend shots. Otherwise that's about it. Plus, there is no accounting for skill. It's not my fault if many of today's mma fighters can't box extremely well.

Quote:

Also, while boxing is great it's a bit narrow, Karate is nice as you learn to incorporate a lot of grabs with yoru strikes which is hard to do with big gloves.

Who said boxing had to have gloves? I know *I* never mentioned gloves anywhere here on this thread. Gloves have nothing to do with the delivery system of boxing - of which I am speaking.

Quote: Bareknuckle boxers incortporated a lot more techniques, I would think, because they didnt have gloves getting in the way or as many rules.

What kinds of techniques? And why Stormy, are you and I going around (again) on this topic? You only come out of the woodwork whenever I show up on a thread it seems. You should already know everything I'm going to say already.

Gloves, gloves, [censored] gloves again. Dude...perhaps you've been absent from here a lot or have just forgotten everything we've ever said to each other. Delivery system bro, does not automatically mean "ring" sport.

Quote:You could say that bareknuckle boxers didnt spar as more or something due to know glvoes but from reading a lot on it I'm pretty sure they sparred just as much. Fought very differently yet the fighters were usually more experienced than todays fighters and did use 'aliveness' in their training. Seems crazy to think they were worse fighters.

Stormdragon, you don't know, because you weren't there. All we have is now brother. Today, not yesterday. What you, I and everyone else can do, execute and perform TODAY is all that matters. I don't care about John L. Sullivan. I really don't. It's as dead an issue as the man himself.

Quote:

And why is everyone criticising Dan so much, Jkogas is way more aggressive against Karate yet no one really cares. Here Dan is at least as experienced as Jkogas (not trying to insult you or jump on you Jkogas and you guys BOTH know wayy more than I ever will lol).

Who is criticizing Dan? I haven't. I've been critical of kata, but don't even try and make something out of nothing and start that crap. Re-read the posts. As far as my being "aggressive 'against' karate"... well, I speak my mind. Don't know what else to do.

Quote:Jkogas-just curious about yoru idea that dirty tactics are so instinctual-what makes you think that?

Let me ask you a question. How easy is it to bite? How difficult is it to stick your finger into someone's eyeball? Not very hard is it?

Quote: I've seen many fights where guys in even the most disadvantagous of positions failed to use such tactics. I havent seen any evidence or research saying that dirty fighting is an inborn human instinct.

Boy, I don't know where you've been looking. Ask Mike Tyson about that. And he's a moron.

Quote:

they're movements like any other, such as a jab, and they have to be trained like any others (such as jabs). If you train to never use those you probably wont in a fight. Granted it's hard to train them with 'aliveness' it's possible-Tony Blauer does some of that I thought same with Paul Vunak.

I'm about to go but I'll respond fully later (whether you like it or not lol jk).What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.I admit I didnt know about the connection boxing had with the Filipino fighters. About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen. According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting. But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most. To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.

Edited by Stormdragon (11/10/0811:50 PM)

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Quote: The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.

Are you telling me that in order to judge an art, one must first master it? How much time in does one need in order to decide that the training methods are not for them, and have, at least from their perspective, several serious flaws?

Quote:In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).

Here's the thing, this is faulty logic, imo. Just because a given training method can make one good fighter, doesn't validate the system as a whole. Higaonna, if he is as good as he is cracked up to be (and you're not the first to say he is good, Don Draeger was another) then he appears to be the exception, not the rule. What matters isn't that one person is at a high level; but, rather, how often the results are repeatable in the building of these abilities. So, just because you can use one or two examples of people who have benifited from this type of training, doesn't validate it as a whole. Boxing has repeatable results, the nature of it's teaching methodology is not pass on the style without obsructions. The very nature of the ranking system of Karate creates a teaching methodology built around the rank system. Knowledge is given only to a few, while the rest 'pay their dues' and hope for the best. There are several reasons why this occurs, but, suffice it to say, none one of them is a pragmatic one (at least not for our time). It is rather a system of passing down knowledge that has it's roots in a period where knowledge had to be closely guarded, and the practioner had be tested for trustworthiness. For the time, it made sense. Now, not so much.

So I disagree with the whole premise of your, and others, argument that Karate takes longer to learn because the tactics are in some way more advanced, or innately needing more time to learn. Actually "their own particular approach and the methods they use" is highly steeped in the culture from which these arts sprang and to try and justify the training approach as anything more than this is wrong, imo. The training approach takes longer, because it was made to take longer, not because it NEEDS to take longer.

Quote: However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention.

Alright, I'll correct you: you're wrong, lol. But seriously Dan, I respect that you have diffirent opinion. I just disagree with you, it doesn't mean I haven't given what you're saying serious attention. I mean, look back at those posts I wrote regarding your article, I obviously read it througly. It's just that I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've said. It's not personel, it's just a difference of opinion.

From this thread we can all clearly concede and appreciate that experiences do vary greatly.

I see NEVER and ALWAYS in alot of posts,but there can't be never or always because of my first statement.

Karate is used too generally. Which style of karate has the best strike? How does each dojo in that style train? How do they strike? When do they spar? What are their rules?

We have to narrow down greatly to see where someone is coming from. So far, Dan is the only one who has clearly listed his experience, taken the time to make indepth articles, and posted videos of what he is talking about. Doesn't mean his opinions hold more water,but you get a better idea of his perspective. That's what the whole debate is about anyway, different people's perspective.

My take is that karate and boxing methods can have more to offer different people. I doubt people like harlan would have much use for boxing or boxing's general training methods(could be wrong,I'm not trying to speak for her).

Some people see kata as a waste of time, I see it as a useful,but not necessary training tool. I don't think John would get much anything out of kata training than he already knows.

Ok, I'm done......

_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<

Quote:What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.

Hearsay about the distant past. Nice.

Quote:About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen.

Uh....it's not supposed to happen...in the RING! I mean, there are rules. Some people just don't care and others are sneakier about it, yet it happens. There is a "dirty" side to boxing that includes low blows, headbutting and other aspects. The entire repertoire of Filipino boxing (Panantukan) is basically referred to as "everything that is legal in boxing and, everything that isn't". Yet the delivery system is still boxing. It's built on boxing and has to be because without fundamentals, all the dirty stuff doesn't mean a thing. "Dirty tactics" without fundamentals, is like having bullets without a gun.

But your point about being unable to think of other examples of where "dirty fighting" didn't happen....WTF?! What are you TALKING about? In the ring or on the street? If you're talking about the ring, it isn't supposed to happen in the ring man! If you're talking about on the street, how many people who have trained in boxing and have gotten into fights have you polled on this matter? That's an absurd point.

Quote:

According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting.

Listen man, people are aware of the rules in a competition apparently, or they'd be thrown out. Perhaps these competitors have more stability, poise, and control than you do and the chaos doesn't make them flip out in the way you're assuming one must. It's a straw-man argument you're attempting to make.

Answer the question: how easy is it to bite? How easy is it to stick your finger into someone's eye?

Quote:

But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most.

Another strawman argument. Haven't you ever seen wrestlers who wrestled dirty, headbutting their opponents? I have. In fact, its been said by some of the greatest wrestlers that to be the best, you have to wrestle on the very edge of the rules. So please Stormy, take this fight you can't win somewhere else. Pick your battles wisely. You ARE NOT going to win this one.

Quote:

To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.

I never said otherwise. YOU are simply saying that it's impossible to do so if you haven't trained specificially for dirty/foul tactics, which is absurd.

Listen Storm (what's your real name bro?), you and I have been over this before. Here you have me doing this before. The problem with you is, you just don't want to concede a debate you can't win. You'll use strawman arguments to try and prove a point and I'm not going to lose energy battling through that garbage as I have in the past.

I will say that you are better prepared if you include foul tactics in your training...but only from a defensive point of view. Offensively, there's nothing to train. Biting isn't an "art", neither is sticking your finger into someone's eye.

Quote:What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.

Hearsay about the distant past. Nice.

Quote:About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen.

Uh....it's not supposed to happen...in the RING! I mean, there are rules. Some people just don't care and others are sneakier about it, yet it happens. There is a "dirty" side to boxing that includes low blows, headbutting and other aspects. The entire repertoire of Filipino boxing (Panantukan) is basically referred to as "everything that is legal in boxing and, everything that isn't". Yet the delivery system is still boxing. It's built on boxing and has to be because without fundamentals, all the dirty stuff doesn't mean a thing. "Dirty tactics" without fundamentals, is like having bullets without a gun.

But your point about being unable to think of other examples of where "dirty fighting" didn't happen....WTF?! What are you TALKING about? In the ring or on the street? If you're talking about the ring, it isn't supposed to happen in the ring man! If you're talking about on the street, how many people who have trained in boxing and have gotten into fights have you polled on this matter? That's an absurd point.

Quote:

According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting.

Listen man, people are aware of the rules in a competition apparently, or they'd be thrown out. Perhaps these competitors have more stability, poise, and control than you do and the chaos doesn't make them flip out in the way you're assuming one must. It's a straw-man argument you're attempting to make.

Answer the question: how easy is it to bite? How easy is it to stick your finger into someone's eye?

Quote:

But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most.

Another strawman argument. Haven't you ever seen wrestlers who wrestled dirty, headbutting their opponents? I have. In fact, its been said by some of the greatest wrestlers that to be the best, you have to wrestle on the very edge of the rules. So please Stormy, take this fight you can't win somewhere else. Pick your battles wisely. You ARE NOT going to win this one.

Quote:

To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.

I never said otherwise. YOU are simply saying that it's impossible to do so if you haven't trained specificially for dirty/foul tactics, which is absurd.

Listen Storm (what's your real name bro?), you and I have been over this before. Here you have me doing this before. The problem with you is, you just don't want to concede a debate you can't win. You'll use strawman arguments to try and prove a point and I'm not going to lose energy battling through that garbage as I have in the past.

I will say that you are better prepared if you include foul tactics in your training...but only from a defensive point of view. Offensively, there's nothing to train. Biting isn't an "art", neither is sticking your finger into someone's eye.

-John

Where did I say that other I am unable to think of other examples where dirty fighting didnt happen? I said it does happen, and I CAN think of other examples where it happens, but I can think of more where it does NOT happen. Learn to R-E-A-D. Anyhow, if dirty fighting was as instinctual as you make it out to be, people would react with it under intense stress more often despite rules which is what happens with instincts, you just do it. But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them.

About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.

Panantukan (sp?) doesnt look too much like boxing, with all that hand trapping (which as far as I know you cant stand-just like the wing chun kind of trapping) if this is what you mean anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLv3uuis60s. They do utilize dirty tactics in training as well, like you said, along with "boxing" (or something like it I guess) doesnt that go against you whole point? Thanks for the counterexample bro.

By the way when I say boxing I mean the American, ring kind. Thats why I mentioned gloves so much before, I mean boxing as applied in the ring with gloves.

Edited by Stormdragon (11/11/0803:38 PM)

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

I know you're adressing John here, but there's a few things I'd like to say about some of your points.

Quote:But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them

Possibly.Possibly, training for a sportive environment may make someone less likely to use foul tactics. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's go with it. Your argument falls apart with: "they fail to use tactivs that could actually save them". Who's to say that 'combat sport' tactics wouldn't save someone in a 'real' fight? As a matter of fact, a case could be made for these being the best tactics to use with regards to prosecution after the fight occurs. Anyway, why is knocking someone out with a cross to the jaw any less valid than an eye gouge? When you say "could save them" this opens up so many variables, that I could just as easily say that "that training tends towards co-operative practice, and that training tends to spill over into street fights, where they fail to use tactics (that can only be learned through alive training) that could save them."

Quote:About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.

That's good, and I could show you examples of modern boxers too. What does that prove? Boxing has changed over the last eighty years because there is a price (literally) to play for not staying current, and changing with the times. The sportive environment works like Darwin's theory of survival of the fitest: the techniques and methods that currently exist are there because they beat the old ones.

--Chris

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Quote:I know you're adressing John here, but there's a few things I'd like to say about some of your points.

Quote:But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them

Possibly.Possibly, training for a sportive environment may make someone less likely to use foul tactics. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's go with it. Your argument falls apart with: "they fail to use tactivs that could actually save them". Who's to say that 'combat sport' tactics wouldn't save someone in a 'real' fight? As a matter of fact, a case could be made for these being the best tactics to use with regards to prosecution after the fight occurs. Anyway, why is knocking someone out with a cross to the jaw any less valid than an eye gouge? When you say "could save them" this opens up so many variables, that I could just as easily say that "that training tends towards co-operative practice, and that training tends to spill over into street fights, where they fail to use tactics (that can only be learned through alive training) that could save them."

Quote:About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.

That's good, and I could show you examples of modern boxers too. What does that prove? Boxing has changed over the last eighty years because there is a price (literally) to play for not staying current, and changing with the times. The sportive environment works like Darwin's theory of survival of the fitest: the techniques and methods that currently exist are there because they beat the old ones.

--Chris

I am not saying that dirty fighting is better all around or anything but that in many cases it's more practical, at least for some people. A big, strong guy could use a cross just as well as am eye poke, maybe easier as it takes less accuracy, however in the case of say, my 120 lbs. girlfriend who isnt too athletic, a cross might work but a properly used eye poke, and a knee to the groin, would work much better. It deends a lot on the person, and the situations you are likely to find yourself in, as to what tactics would be best. It's nice to have those options in mind though, I'd say. And I never said anything about training co-operatively. I agree that step sparring and similar practices are useless past your first month maybe of training. You obviously cant go "all out" but you cant do that anyway, no matter what techniques you use you always have to hold back a bit, or change how you do thigns to protect yoru training partners, however you CAN train some dirty tactics un-cooporatively, to some extent anyway, especially with a good set of gear. And even if you cant, it's still valuable as long as you're getting some un-cooporative practice.

In the Marines, through the 80's and 90's, they practiced the LINE system, which was all about dirty fighting and the drills of coruse were pre-arranged and mostly co-operative. They combined it with what they called combat hitting which was basically boxing as far as I know. For people who actually kept up with it past boot it worked great, and I've heard from many guys that it was a better program than what they have today. Most notably because it trained them to react in as violent a way as possible. And plenty of guys used that training in real situations. They said that the LINE program combiend with combat hitting was about perfect for them. It obviously can work.

About the old footage I mentioned, I was using it to show how different boxing was in the old days and then went on to state my opinion that it wasnt necessairly worse in terms of effectiveness of their methods.

In any case, are saying we should just forget the past entirely and all that it can teach?

About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".

Jkogas-jsut because the short Filipino stance was best for knife fighting doesnt mean it was best for everything. It's just speculation but I doubt many if any of those Filipinos could've bested John L. Sullivan in a bare-knuckle boxing match, or Bob Fitzimmons or any other champions of those days. Their methods obviously worked for them and they continued using them for a reason.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,